Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Further Discussion

Discussion concerning this page takes place here. Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place here.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Bloody Clothing

Timestamp:	Galaxy125 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor Improvement - Clothing Adjustment
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	Scent Blood allows zombies to determine health and infection status of players, which aids zombies in target selection. I propose that blood-flecked, blood-stained and blood-soaked clothing confuse the zombies' Scent Blood ability. Specifically, I suggest that blood-flecked clothing reduce a survivor's HP as seen by the zombie by 2 HP, blood-stained as 5 HP, and blood-soaked as 10 HP. Note that these are only changes to the survivor's apparent HP as displayed next to that survivor's name: if the zombie swings at that human, they get the normal, unadjusted message with the survivor's regular HP. I recognize that a zombie could just check the survivors' profiles to see if they're wearing blood-altered clothing. This adjustment is mainly intended for large-scale sieges (where checking survivors' profiles is difficult), with the "realism" bonus that if you're wearing bloody clothing, zombies are more likely to come after you. Suggestions for dealing with the "apparent negative HP" effect are welcome.

Discussion (Bloody Clothing)

This would be way too confusing, since the survivor would appear to have two different HP totals at the same time. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Pestolence. We would have EVERYONE wearing bloody clothes. What's the hinderance to that?--Pesatyel 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If infection cure was not 100% and bloody clothing reduced the chances further i could see a point... as is its just a confusiong fluff for no good (in game) reason. --Honestmistake 01:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Interesting idea, though, but would just get annoying pretty fast. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Profile Reset

Timestamp:	Tony 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	just some things
Scope:	players in general
Description:	ok you know when you make your first profile you get a sweet name but later you want a fresh start BUT you DONT get keep that name of yours,well i propose that you use the wikito contact kevin or whoever to request a reset by sending them your character info and such, and it will only work if youhaving an acount on the wiki. il try to think of somthing to help with this.

Discussion (Profile Reset)

Fixed your formatting. However, this is covered in the official FAQ. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,21]} 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just create a new character and capitalize a letter or add a number at the end. big freaking deal. Although, i wouldn't be so opposed to kevan doing a death purge of any character that hasn't been logged in for a year or more, to free up some names. - tylerisfat 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is something i fully support... I also can't see why we cant have the same names in different cities/maps but that is a different matter!--Honestmistake 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd leave to confusion. What if a new guy rocked up and created Finis Valorum (coz he liked star wars like that) and then got PKed constantly and had zerging allegations threw at him. Far better to just create another name, there's still truckloads of them out there. In regards to this suggestion, nah, extra work for kevan and you might change your mind again. Create another character if you want.--xoxo 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand all the reasons to ban same names in same cities but in the case of new maps it just doesn't work..... sure a new Finis will probably get whacked (i waved at him myself?) but so will "finis valorum 99" or whatever... If there can be no transfer then there should be no name blocking... for gruds sake the new map dies in about a week so name blocking romm themis a real pain!--Honestmistake 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah i guess the different city is just a kevan thing. He could make Bwood profiles b1,b245 etc but i guess this was easier...--xoxo 01:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Same names in different cities could easily cause trouble. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running around in another city with the same name as my character in Malton. It's natural to assume that they're controlled by the same player. Anything they do there is going to be reflected on my character in Malton.

There are tons of names available, just pick one and make a new character. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [501,22]} 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be problematic. The profile interface is very simplistic. Having "Bob" 3 times with different classes and skills would just be too complicated and also unncessary. I mean there is already an infinite number of names out there. But I DO like Tyler's idea of deleting the oldest unused characters.--Pesatyel 05:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Look inside/outside

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Ability
Scope:	All players
Description:	Allows anyone, regardless of living/dead status, to look inside/outside of buildings, so long as there are no barricades and the doors are open. This adds a new button, labelled "Look through doors". By looking through the open doors, you can get a basic idea of what is awaiting you inside/outside. You cannot see outside graffiti from inside, but from the outside you can spot bloodstains and graffiti, but you are not close enough to read the graffiti, nor are you able to make out how much blood there is. You can spot players through open doors, but the following rules apply: If there is less than 5 people present, you will not spot them. If there is between 5 and 9 people present (inclusive), then you have a 10% chance of getting the message 'Through the open doors, you see something move.' If there is 10 to 14 people present (inclusive), there is a 25% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see something large shifting around'. If there is 15 to 19 people present, there is a 50% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see what appears to be a group of people'. If there is 20 or more people present, you will get the message 'Through the open doors, you spot a large group of people'. When I say 'people' , I mean both zombies and humans. This does nerf the Hiding in Plain Sight strategy somewhat, however only if you're in a large group.

Discussion (Look inside/outside)

Will this cost an AP? Pretty useless IMO-why not just enter the building? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The chances of a building with 20+ survivors inside having DWO is pretty low. Likewise 20+ zombies in a building would probably give clues outside. (It being ruined or the windows being smeared with bloody handprints. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No AP cost. It does take an IP hit, though. I was actually thinking about making it automatic. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if the doors are open, it'd be a better option to just enter the building and see everything and peek inside and get a vaugue description, assuming this suggestion requires AP. -- Yungblood 7:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I think if this was a freebie for whoever brings down the last level of cades (if they have MOL) or closes the door then i would say yes but as a generic freebie for all its not so good.--Honestmistake 22:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty useless; why not just enter the building? This also is Xray vision, which is a huge no no. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline X-ray, but the lack of barricades makes it uncommon, and not as bad as other X-ray suggestions. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it also makes sense that you can look out an open door. Unlike other X-ray suggestions (one or more of which may have been my own) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be fine if it was automatic, like if the doors are open you just get the status report on outside in the description, otherwise it's too pointless, so no.--xoxo 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

ZombiesVsCades

Timestamp:	Destor 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	As a zombie with maxed out skills, the worst part of being a zombie is that you cannot generally break down the cades, get inside, and kill a survivor in one play ssession. if you are lucky, you might get to do this sometimes, but I generally have to log back on ater a few hours to finish the survivor off. So, I suggest that zombies should no longer get the baricade creaks message after they buy a new skill called rip down or something. because of this, they will now always hit when they get a hit, instead of half of a chance because of the creak message.

Discussion (ZombiesVsCades)

As far as I know there is no conclusive evidence that barricade creaks and halved accuracy are linked. Supposedly it's just random (not indicating a near miss) flavor text. And have you even thought this through? What it seems you want is that zombie should get the full 50% when attacking cades. This would mean that VSB buildings could last about 20 attacks before the cades fall. EHB (I think it has max 20 stages) buildings would last around 40 attacks. Basically, no building could stand against one single zombie. While I'm all for making it a bit easier on the feral zombies, this is not what I would like to see implemented. - User:Whitehouse 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As Whitehouse. Where did you get that the creaking message meant half of a chance? --Pestolence^(talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OH HEAVEN FORBID THAT ZOMBIES NO LONGER HAVE TO FUCKING META-GAME THEIR ASSES OFF! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! -- #99 ^DCC 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Haha. The zombie children. Zombie fetus. - tylerisfat 08:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

problem is that a lot of zombies would continue meta-gaming and utterly destroy all harmanz within days! A skill which gave a MOL zombie with free running a (very) small chance to wriggle into buildings that fall below strong cades might be acceptable. Probably not though!--Honestmistake 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be amused by a mechanic wherein zombies can "wriggle in" to LB buildings, but doing so increases the barricade level by three (in other words, goes from LB to QB, LB+1 to QB+1, or LB+2 to QB+2). This could be reasoned as the zombie struggling through weakened barricades, but collapsing the ceiling of the building behind him. -- Galaxy125 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of them remembering that they dont need to destroy the cades if they can clamber over them... that being said i do think it has been shot down before, probably more than once.--Honestmistake 11:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I was led to believe the creaking message was half chance because of the barricades page. It says it like it is a fact, so I assumed it was. Second, the purpose of this was so zombies would be able to take down a cade in one gameplay session. And third..... what? I cannot tell if you are being supportive or not. Finally, the suggestion for zombies to crawl through barricades has been shot down before, so I would just get a large string of dupes. --Destor 00:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that on the barricades page. It does mention that the chance of weakening the barricade is equal to half the hit rate of the weapon used; however, that has nothing to do with the creaking message. The only the word "creak" ever appears on that page is in the sentence "Sometimes a barricade will "creak", but this will not weaken the barricades." And unless Kevan or someone else comes by with evidence to prove you right and me wrong, your suggestion is now irrelevant, since it is based on a faulty premise. Good day, --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference is Guides:First_Day_in_Malton. Ctrl-f to find "creak." Other previous suggestions (Suggestions/RejectedMay2006#Toxic_Miasma) also talk about creaking/hitting being a secondary randomization effect. -- Galaxy125 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference to creaking in Guides:First_Day_in_Malton is just there to explain that seeing creaks means you missed. I put it in for flavor and because it seems likely, but I have no hard evidence that it is in fact so. OTOH, It also has no real bearing on this suggestion either way; if it is not already that way, Kevan can adapt the code so that it does work that way, or would be equivalent. IMO, the idea is overpowered; a bonus to your next hit with you get a creak would be less of a boost, but that is likely a dupe.  Swiers 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your forgetting ONE important thing: Hordes. Multiply it by a billion. Zombies CAN take down barricades in one session by working together. Your whining because as a lone zombie you can't get in and kill a guy on your own. Tough shit. It's not supposed to be THAT easy.

• Example: a zombie yses 40 AP to tear down a barricade and enters. He has 9 AP left to attack and gets in 3 or 4 hits before running out.
• Example 2: 4 zombies each use 10 AP to tear down the barricade and enter. They each have 39 AP to attack with.

All of that is with the normal rules. I suppose its moot because your not ACTUALLY suggesting anything about barricades or anything. All your suggesting is that you no longer get the "creak" mesage. That does not alter anything what so ever. Oh, also, it is ALWAYS half hit percentage to any attack (except the crowbar, guns and knife).--Pesatyel 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that I forgot the multiply by a billion rule, so it would not work anyway. but, the main purpose of the suggestoin is to remove the half-hit chance for zombies. I understand that it would not work, but you are being a little harsh. The entire purpouse of this was to remove the half hit chance. the creaking is unimportant. If I ever entered it as an actual suggestion, I would remove that now, but I will not because you have convinced me otherwise. do, better luck next time to me, good night to all of you.--Destor 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The half % to hit is there for a reason, that's the point of my example.--Pesatyel 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

illogical, sadly. but, as DCC or whoever, zombies do have to metagame their asses off to succeed. but, even as it stands, when they do they do, they are damn hard to stop... this isn't exactly fair, but i don't know how to fix the problem... and this isn't the way. --WanYao 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombies In The Water

Timestamp:	Maunder 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	environment interaction
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies should be able to walk in deep water (eg, style c85 "a river") that players cannot, as in Borehamwood. They're not breathing, after all, and haven't we seen them emerging from rivers and ponds etc in the movies? It just seems right! An automatic ability for anyone in a zombified state. But, to slow them down a little, it should take them an extra AP to enter a deep river (so 3AP without Lurching Gait, 2AP with).

Discussion (Zombies In The Water)

most humans can swim, i wouldn't worry too much about logic.--xoxo 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Borehamwood is a temporary city so adding suggestions for it is pointless. Also, Malton has no water. But as said, why can't survivors swim across too? Then you have to deal with the ramifications of the water. What about water/underwater combat? Are zombies "invisible" underwater?--Pesatyel 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a river, perhaps the curent of the river is too strong for survivors to swim? As for no water in Malton, there is supposedly a "river" to the North, its just that the map would need to be expanded, which is possible in the future, even if it doesn't happen in the near future.--G-Man 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The river doesn't appear in the game, and if the current is too strong for survivors to swim, then how would zombies, who are supposedly slower and clumsier than humans, manage it? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Supposedly" is nothing and that doesn't counter the whole host of other things necessary to consider, as I stated.--Pesatyel 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

@Pestolance, think World War Z and the zeds in oceans, yes this is different but its a good example, the zombies are merely grounded, not trying to swim, which would be a huge difference. @Pesatyel, yes those would have to be considered, but this is still a start, and can be justified as just zombies with the ability to move through, as well as a possible spot in Malton that could be opened up in the future. It is something interesting to explore for future maps or additions to Malton and shoulden't be shot down so quickly.--G-Man 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, which cause me to elucidate my thoughts a bit further. I wanted to change one aspect of a map's dynamics and tactics, without changing the direct player interaction any: survivors can be "cornered" in a space bounded by deep water, but zombies cannot. Survivors cannot depend on a few access bridges as defensive choke points. I'm not trying for "realism" about how people should interact with water, so I'm not even going to suggest a rationale behind it other than its effects on game play. The consequence of my suggestion as it stands is that zombies could attack each other normally while in the deep river, but they'd have no interaction with survivors because there can't be any survivors there. You can think about changing combat in the water if you want to, or allowing humans to enter it too, but my proposal doesn't suggest that. If you're going to criticize my suggestion, shouldn't you actually address what I suggested? Or if you really think the suggestion ought to include those changes, can you explain why it's better that way, or what my suggestion lacks on its own? -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, even though it won't have a big impact on Malton as it stands, it's a relatively simple rule adjustment to implement and understand, and would have interesting effects for any future maps with deep water, whether they be short-term or long-standing (and may inspire the design of such maps!). -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Details are important to shoot down those who will vote down your susgestion based only on the lack of them. They expect rational situations and any sugestion (even here) to cover all bases, so it is imperitive that the suggested problems by Pesatyel be addressed. It makes sense so only the best suggestions make it through, that all players will be happy with, even if the suggestion system is broken based on voters taking sides instead of a neutral point of view. Don't worry, just figure out how those situations fit into your sugestion and then ask for comment on your proposed solutions. Even a basic idea can help someone here figure something out. Personnely I would have no survivors in the water, and zombies "invisible" in all spaces except for a few exceptions.

• When in the same space as another zombie, all zombies are visible.
• Zombies in a nearby water space to another zombie will be counted as "blurred images", and no accurate numbers will be given.
• Any survivors next to a water space have a "blurred image" of any zombies in adjacent water spaces.
• Any zombies in a water space have a "blurred Image" of any survivors/zombies on dry land.

As well I would go with the ability to attack, but no damage done or xp recieved, due to water slowing the blows. As for the actual message given to survivors, "You think about entering the water, but realise the current is too strong to swim across"--G-Man 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

---

High-speed manufacrured syringes

Timestamp:	Rachel Akebre 08:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Use for manufactoring syringes
Scope:	NecroTech Employees
Description:	Currently there is no reason to manufacture syringes, because the search rate is far more than 5%. So I propose that the revive cost for manufactored syringes is 5AP instead of 10. It would still be less efficient than searching (16AP in total vs 25) but it would encourage tactics and intelligent behaviour. (The examples are obvious) The manufactured would be marked with a (2.1) after their name.

Discussion High-speed manufacrured syringes

Hmm... Interesting suggestion. I like the idea of a short-term AP cost for a long-term gain. Can't find a dupe, and could introduce some interesting tactics (especially among dedicated revivers.) Linkthewindow  Talk  08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with making manufacturing better is that it prevents search rate balancing which, with syringes, is a major major deal. Not to mention there are situations where Manufacture is better, originally the skill was as good as or better than the search rates at the time and currently is both more reliable for suicide revivers running low and any affected extremely negatively by the variable search rates thing that can make certain areas down right useless for searching.--Karek^maps?! 09:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

20ap versus around 9 is a bit steep. I think 15 would be more reasonable. --xoxo 09:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Used to be 20 AP vs 5, also used to be 20 AP vs ~35. Still, I'd pay twice the cost when I absolutely need the needles to know I'm not gonna get boned by the RNG in an area that I know is bad for NTs, especially if the only one I can power is Ransacked or Ruined.--Karek^maps?! 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it has a purpose, but considering syringes are 2% encum, it's a very niche market.--xoxo 09:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think i would vote keep for this. Would allow for a slight benefit to survivors to give a balance that, at least in contested area's, is desperately needed. A slight add on thought would be that maybe only the manufactured ones can revive rotters (still inside the powered building, of course) or the other way around, only found ones. - tylerisfat 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Since the odds are tipped toward the Zombies, why not cut down the AP usage/creation for syringes? This would provide a slightly less steep advantage for the zombies. It might actually counter-balance the the advantage. I would vote for this. -- Ωmega360 ^T 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Odds tipped for the zombies? This is retarded especially since ALL syringes are 100% to hit and 100% effective. WAH WAH! you have to use some rechargeable AP to make it if you can't find it! Oh NOES you can go into the negative to make it if you don't find it! This is so ROUGH! You can't justify lowering the AP cost to use a syringe - any syringe. We don't want to go back to the days of 1 AP per needle. It was increased because needles are too powerful as a weapon. Now with DNA Extractors that is especially true since there are a lot less (if any) wasted on rotters. -- #99 ^DCC 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Going to have to agree, don't want to waste the AP? don't press the button. Remember it's the only thing that even can be manufactured, and it is the most powerful weapon in the game x10, even if 100% of the deciated zombies were rotters. Syringes aren't meant to be easy to find and there's little reason to change this mechanic in this manner as it fits what its meant to accomplish without providing too much of an advantage or disadvantage based on situation. Want to tip the scales? Find something else, otherwise just search.--G-Man 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so much that the odds are in favor of zombies, but the difficulty of getting a revive, especially for rot revives. i know you likely don't care about those rot revivers, but some of us do. perhaps cheaper manufactured syringes that can only be used in powered buildings? - tylerisfat 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having played a survivor with Brain Rot, I can tell you that it is not difficult to get a rot revive, especially if you're in a group (even a small one). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [500,18]} 00:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I hope to open a rot revive clinic through my own group in the future, and had begun to in the past through another group I was a part of before it fell apart. As for the diffculty of getting a revive, both my characters have been undead for the month of November, who both act as exculsivly survivor, and yet I still don't support this change.--G-Man 03:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, just speaking from experience. I have a rotted survivor who's been waiting and mrhing around for a long bloody time. So much so that i just log in to keep him from idling out. He's been there for a month and a half waiting for the NT's to get back up and going. Not saying its impossible, but it can be a challenge. I have another survivor thats been stumbling to a different revive point every couple of days, trying to find a revive. I shouldn't have a to join a group to get a revive. (I have other characters in groups, by the way). Its not the safe suburbs, its the suburbs currently under seige that i'm seeing. Its very difficult for people to keep generators going. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not a giant advocate of this suggestion, but I would probably vote keep. I realize its possible to get rot revives, much more easily if i'm in a group, but if my character is a brain rotted/non-meta gamer, i shouldn't have to change that just to get a revive once every couple of months. - tylerisfat 05:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be waiting for a revive in a suburb under siege, rot or no rot. Going into a green suburb to get revived is often faster even for non-rotters. Also, waiting in a ruined NT isn't very productive, most likely you'll just get shot and dumped when they take the NT back. Find a powered NT and break in (it is possible to break into EHB all by yourself, won't probably even take a week if you're lucky, assuming you have maxed claws). Then look at the people who are in the building, check who has the necessary skills, gesture at them, mrh and hope that other zombies don't find the open NT before one of the survivors wakes up. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,18]} 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The only real reason beyond my laziness for not having a revive is using my IP hits for new borehamwood characters. ;) - tylerisfat 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a significant difference between found and made syringes but I am not sure that this fits the bill. Personally i think giving them a 50% chance of curing infection would be fair given the cost of making them... --Honestmistake 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This I could agree with, but a lower percentage.--G-Man 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What? A 100% to hit AND it cures infection? How about manufactured syringes that auto-kill any zombies outside the NT when you make it because it is just THAT AWESOME and only costs like 5AP to make and comes with a sniper scope! DON'T FUCK WITH SYRINGES. There isn't a problem with the needles - it is with the dipshits playing survivors. You want a rez? Move to a green suburb. Not that hard people now that the Dead don't have the whole fucking map red anymore. Fucking Pussies. -- #99 ^DCC 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Chill man. Giving such a small buff to a manufactured syringe as a 25-50% chance to cure infection (if there even is one!) could actually help zombies when people start wasting AP to make em. Zombies already know that infection is only a hassle anyway and very rarely kills anyone. Personally i would like syringes to cure at 25%, manufactured syringes to cure at 50% and FAKs to cure at 50% unless in a powered hospital (100%) but its very unlikely that would pass!--Honestmistake 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

there are lots of reasons to manufacture a syringe... and the fact that it's automatic is the benefit; 20 ap is the trade off. and, as dcc says, survivors just don't play smart... that's 90% of the problem. --WanYao 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Assisting Survivors

Timestamp:	Adrian Niles 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Survivor Interaction
Scope:	All Survivors
Description:	This action is not a skill that needs to be purchased with ExP. It is used by survivors to assist others that are injured by holding them and carrying them from one point to another. There is only 1 way that this action is available, and that is when another survivor in the same block as you has their HP reduced to half or lesser (30 for survivors with the Body-Building skill, 25 for those without it) and they are either logged out or have run out of AP. Example: John Doe is standing outside St. Mary's General Hospital. Also present is Jane Doe. Jane Doe ran out of AP right when she got outside St. Mary's, and her health is at 16HP. Jane does not have Body-Building. In the box where a description of your surroundings is, there will be a line saying Jane Doe is currently in need of assistance. or something like that. When this line is shown, a box will appear saying Assist next to a pull-down box listing injured survivors. John then clicks on it to Assist Jane. After assisting a survivor, it will cost 2 AP to carry them, and the Assist button will be replaced with Let Go. It does NOT require AP to Grab or Let Go of survivors. Survivors being carried will not lose HP if they are infected and no additional AP will be lost. While still holding a survivor, it is impossible to attack zombies, search for items, and everything else except speaking until you Let Go of the survivor. You can not Free-Run with injured survivors between buildings. I see 1 way that this action can be abused by players: When someone carries an injured survivor out into the street and leaves them out there to the mercy of wandering zombies. Other then that, I think it's a good action to have that builds teamwork and encourages cooperation amongst survivors.

Discussion (Assisting Survivors)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  08:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting fixed-please use the template on top of the page in future Linkthewindow  Talk  04:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a Pied Piper suggestion. Please read Frequently Suggested before posting in future. I'm pretty sure it's a dupe as well, but can't find one now. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we have -Fireman's Carry in peer review. The problem with the suggestion is that its incomplete for one, but its been suggested a LOT...which how we came up with Fireman's Carry. It has strict limitations. Otherwise, imagine someone picks up your character and moves him across town or into a horde of zombies or something.--Pesatyel 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would SO carry people into zombie hordes. I vote YES on Prop: Carry! -- #99 ^DCC 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way I would consider anything like this if for it to work like Feeding Drag... namely low HP and no cades in the way. I would also want it restricted to dragging folk inside the current tiles building only. Sadly all this makes it almost completely useless unless you see someone dragged out while in a live fight! --Honestmistake 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Barricading outside

Timestamp:	Swordy 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement to construction
Scope:	All Humans with Construction
Description:	What this improvement idea does is it allows humans with Construction to erect Barricades around a building. These Barricades could only be brought up when the interior of a building is not barricaded because; lets face it no one could drag a desk or other Barricade material over a giant mound on junk... The Barricades on the outside could only be brought up to Very Strongly not Extremely Heavy due to realism issues. Case and point, would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house so tall that no one could get over them? Just using material lying about barricades that high would be very unlikely… That is the main reason that the barricades only go up to VSB but the other reason is that due to over barricade in some suburbs new players are left out in the streets unprotected and die very often. These outside Barricade could be clambered over by Survivors and used as an outside save haven, while still serving a use to defending buildings if used. This is my first suggestion so sorry if it is wrong or hard to understand. Evil Swordy

Discussion (Barricading outside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved up to the top of the suggestions que (it was posted at the bottom.) Please post at the top in future. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is something that has been suggested before, and has been shot down based on the premise that it is wildly over powered for survivors. Remember that those playing as Zombies are players too, and you can't be perfectly safe. They have to be able to get to you, and as it is it can take a Zombie his full daily 50 AP just to work the cades down... and not even make it inside. - tylerisfat 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Overpowered? Not really. This suggestion allows you to choose maximum barricading level, you can either have cades on the inside of the building (the way it is now) which can go up as high as possible, or you can have them on the outside where they are limited to VSB. The point of this is simply to halt over-barricading (actually that is rather powerful in some sense). All this suggestion does is enforce VSB by starting the construction on the outside of the building which disallows the building of cades inside. You'd be told that there are cades there, and that (if you are a survivor) you can scramble onto the inside of them to relative safety (relative because while on the inside of the cades you are still outside the building), but you'd be visible from other blocks. It wouldn't hinder movement, it'd just function as blocking zeds from entering the building and attacking survivors in the same block as long as the survivor has opted to be on the inside of the outdoor cades. In fact, this slows survivor movement if they want to enter a building with outdoor cades, as you'd need to scramble over them, and then enter through the doors. That's how I read it anyhow. - User:Whitehouse 23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, i think once the outside ones are erected you can build internals as high as EHB as well. realism wise there'd be no reason why you couldn't. if i'm right in that interpretation it is very much overpowered.--xoxo 09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, misinterpreted that did I. Well if it is that way then yes it would be somewhat overpowering. Suggestion maker, would this prevent cades on the inside? Or can they be built freely once the outside ones are done? - User:Whitehouse 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

...well... i Meant this to only be able to make the Barricades on the outside and not on the inside and if you could have the double layers of cades this would be insanely cheap but i dont have a really good reason for why you wouldnt... maybe you ran out of materials? or something... but one thing you have to consider is that you can only erect the outdoor baricades when you have no indoor Baricades... so a wandering Zed could still get through the outdoor cades and kill anybody out there but would have to wait for more AP for the internal Cades...so ya take that anyway you want to....however Whitehouse your original statements on this matter accuratly state wat i was hoping this would be used for. Sorry this is rather esoteric to read but ya that is why i posted this here to get feedback and polish this up if people like it...--Swordy 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To use the words in the suggestion: "...would you honestly in a real outbreak be able to make Barricades out side your house ...". Who the fuck would DO that?--Pesatyel 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In a real outbreak? Of course you would. A lot of houses have chokepoints that would be better for barricading. If a zombie can't get on your raised stone porch, it can't get to the doors or windows. In Malton? No.--William Told 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your surrounded by zombies and your going to go outside to barricade?--Pesatyel 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it if I was surrounded by zombies at that particular moment, but I'd do it if none were around.--William Told 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to stop over-barricading? The solution: Kill 'Caders. Problem solved. -- #99 ^DCC 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Emigration

Timestamp:	Pastor Rob 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Re-engage maxed out characters
Description:	(This suggestion uses Borehamwood as the example, but Monroeville would work equally well to the same effect.) I think that Borehamwood should become accessible to characters that have maxed out their skills in Malton. Make it an option that characters can emigrate to Borehamwood. They would then start anew as a Lvl 1 in the new city. (No transfer of any weapons, items, etc.) If you get head-shot in Borehamwood then you would get sent back to Malton and have to start all over again. In which case you would spawn in a random place in Malton as a level 1 newbie all over again. Access gate(s) to Borehamwood should probably be located only in one, or possibly two restricted sites on the periphery Malton. The lack of Necrotech facilities and revives definitely changes the dynamics of how people play the game. There would not longer be a need for people to generate alternate characters to regain that new feeling to the game. It would be built right in. This could add a new dynamic to the game. Many characters loose interest in the game after maxing out in Malton. This could renew their characters and give them something to struggle for. I think this could really cure some of the stagnation in the city. Another advantage of this is that it would really take time for a player to progress all the way through, no one could do this overnight. If someone is not willing to risk starting all over again, then they never have to leave the confines of Malton. Hence emigration is optional for those that fancy a different challenge.

Discussion (Emigration)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

Linkthewindow  Talk  05:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they could always just start a new character instead --Honestmistake 16:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevan has indicated in the past that he doesn't want characters moving between cities. No free ride for you. --William Told 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't just create a new character why??--xoxo 05:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

DNA extract another zombie?

Timestamp:	--Kez0 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors especially revivers
Description:	This suggestion is to possibly add another button when DNA extracting zombies that are in groups. Right now you can only DNA extract the first zombie you see, and sometimes its either a brain rotter or a known PKer or GKer. You may want to scan another zombie but it will come up with the same result as before and scan the same zombie. Just recently I scanned a know PKer and I heard that I shouldn't revive him. I killed the zombie but it turned out not to be the PKer and therefore have accidentally killed a zombie waiting for revive. What I suggest is, after scanning a zombie and checking the zombies details, there should be an extra button placed saying 'DNA extract another zombie'. Therfore you can pick and choose which zombie to revive and avoid brain rotters and PKers.

Discussion (DNA extract another zombie)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  05:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am certain this is a dupe or at the very least something that was on this page not too long ago. While it makes logical sense this would destroy a rotters ability to block revive lines which is a very valid and useful tactic. As for Pkers etc... they don't actually block the line and once scanned you can scan again and get a different zombie unless someone has already scanned em all. --Honestmistake 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When did DNA extraction change? You DO know that you can keep scanning zombies in a stack, right? If there are 5 zombies in the stack, you can scan all 5. If the 3rd zombie in the stack is a zombie, you can keep trying until you get a sucess, then you can scan zombies 4 and 5. The only thing that will stop you is if some of the zombies in the stack are already scanned (in which case you keep getting the same zombie) OR if you get sick of failures on a rotter. In other words, this is already IN the game.--Pesatyel 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a dupe, it also runs a few problems, the biggest being that you're circumventing the stack which is limited as is because of how big of an advantage it would be to basically all survivors. You'd basically be completely negating zombie anonymity for X ap, X being how many zombies are in the stack.--Karek^maps?! 09:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Victory Locations Can Move!

Timestamp:	ShadowScope'the true enemy' 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	"Top Secret Victory Location"
Description:	You know the problem I have with Iscoriat's sig? It's too short. This suggestion to the game can fix it. In Boreville, there is a building known as Big Brother House, which I will classify as a "Victory Location". One of the main goal of the game is to find this "Victory Location", spend an AP to write in the logbook, and then wait a while to 'Profit'. The problem is that once you find out this "Victory Location", there is nothing else to do. So, instead, I state for Victory Locations to be moved every once in a while, to provide a challenge. Example: Say, in Malton, some stupid NecroTech system operator accidently linked a Library computer up to the NecroNet system. Surviors and Zombies rush around to find this specific Library. Once somebody stumbles into the Library, this person spend 1 AP to access this Library Computer and receive a special message from the NecroTech system operator (to be determined by Kevan). After a while, the NecroTech system operator finds out his error, and shuts down the link to the Library Computer, but in the process, opening up another link at a random NecroTech building. So, there is a chase with differnet people trying to find the next Computer to find more hidden messages. So, moving Victory Locations. That should make Iscoriat's sig bigger.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Victory Locations Can Move!)

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  07:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? 2 hours before you put this up I was talking on here. Someone else was yesterday. Jumping the gun a bit? - tylerisfat 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, don't be so harsh. Not enough people cycle suggestions here. I just immediately looked to the bottom-that is where the most recent discussion normally is. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get how i was harsh, so much as legitimately puzzled about the lack of effort to spend 3 seconds scanning the replies to find out what the most recent was. You should wait at least 5 days after the last post, not 2. Its not like we're dying from a need to delete stuff to save the servers. - tylerisfat 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating idea, but impractical, and I don't think buildings in Malton should move around. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not suggesting the BUILDINGS move, but that whatever is in the building moves. His computer example in the suggestion can be any school and can be changed from school to school.--Pesatyel 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideas like this have been suggested before and weren't though of that positively.--Pesatyel 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Iz this a joke? If not, get cho hands off my Malton! I like it how it is...new cities are where novelty gimmicks belong.--xoxo 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I kind of like it, especially if it included some sort of achievement flag thing like the Monroeville badges. --Karek^maps?! 09:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be a great idea for a mini-game in UD if someone wanted to organize it. Have a sanctioned "Victory Location" known to group X with "hints" on their page and updates when it moves. You could make a survivor or zombie character that people could add to their contacts and when they spot him the game is over and the location moves.-- #99 ^DCC 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Or we could all play "Bub hunt" with a flag given to anyone who DNA scans and then kills him. To give the zeds something to do for their flag they could get an in-game message that Bub was violated by such and such (last scanner before they logged in) and where it happened. whoever kills him gets a vengeance flag...--Honestmistake 13:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Put up a phrase on the wiki, and make the player say it in their prescence. Have someone log on once every few days to keep it from idling or dying out, and just watch the play history to find out who said the phrase first. Iwitness it onto the wiki as proof, and that person can put a link on their profile to a scoreboard. - tylerisfat 05:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And for non-Rattle zombies make an alternative gesture/action.-- #99 ^DCC 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Forgot about the whole rattle issue. One of those skills that i forget actually costs XP once i've bought it. Yes, absolutely, alternate gesture. Is anyone actually considering getting this going? It could actually be some fun, especially if you could ger a larger group or two to sponser it to get it going. - tylerisfat 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm going to need to consider if it is worth sending this to a vote even if it might be sent to Peer Rejected, if only to archive it for Kevan to look at later...--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Pin

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Skill.
Scope:	Zombies and their victims
Description:	Pin is a new zombie attack available after purchasing the skill "Pin" which is a sub skill of Tangling Grasp. It has the following stats: Dmg-0 Acc-40% When a zombie successfully attacks it is assumed to have knocked the survivor over and pinned them to the ground. A zombie who has pinned a survivor down can only use bite attacks on that survivor, interacting with any other object/moving away/death releases the survivor (the survivor is then classed as knocked down instead of pinned). If another zombie Pins a pinned survivor they replace the old zombie (it should be assumed the zombie has pushed the other zombie away from the food). A survivor who is knocked/pinned down has a screen similar to when dead but rather than saying "You are dead" it has the following flavour text and stand up costs: For Knockdown "You have been knocked to the ground" - "Stand up (1AP)" or For Pinned "A zombie is pinning you down" - "Stand up (5AP)" Upon entering a room where zombie(s) have pinned down survivors there is an additional line of text reading either: A zombie is attempting to feed on xxxxx or Zombies are attempting to feed on xxxxx, yyyyy and zzzzz Zombies who are currently pinning survivors may be attacked normally as the targets: xxxxx's Zombie yyyyy's Zombie zzzzz's Zombie

Discussion (Pin)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's a type of headshot. Now, about the zombie and survivor that are down on the ground, can they be attacked normally by other survivors and non-pinning zeds? Or does a zed have to pin to be able to attack, meaning that survivors who are on the ground are only vulnerable to bite attacks, and possibly what the survivors will do to them. - User:Whitehouse 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Zombies can be attacked as normal by any other player. As for pinned survivors... well it's up for discussion, having them only vulnerable to the pinning zombie makes a kind of sense however it is probably easier to have them vulnerable to everybody (it would prevent zombie armour and other abuse) however it is up for you lot to help decide upon.--Kamikazie-Bunny 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This has the potential to be a griefing tool, draining AP if used in realtime.. _■^■ 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't fuck with my ap!! Nice flavoury and improved gameplay(ish) idea but this can really screw over survivors, just to stand up would be 5ap. And before the zombie brigade kill me, while a surivivor is in its natural habitat defending a building it could be constantly pinned and targeted. It takes massive effort to headshot a zombie, like 20ap +++ this seems to cost 1ap...--xoxo 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Real time battles may not be a major game feature, but they ARE fun when they happen, especially now that they are fairly well balanced via barricade build blocking etc. The "Infection" skill already does most of that this skill would achieve, without being so overpowering or greiftastic.  Swiers 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruins anonymity, you don't get a message telling you which zombie opened the door (thus giving you the one with MoL to shoot at) why should you get it with this? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could say that the zombie that uses this skill pays the price of losing its anonymity. However, I also think even with this "cost", a 5:1 AP ratio is rather unbalanced in real-time combat. Maybe put a timer on how often it can be used? (P.S. I think someone may be pretty excited about Left 4 Dead. Just a thought. :P) -- Ashnazg 1523, 14 November 2008 (GMT)

---

Death Knell

Timestamp:	MrCarver 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	[UPDATED VERSION]I changed the name of the skill from Rage to Death Knell by definition is as follows as it's more fitting. "A harbinger of the end, death, or destruction of something." I don't want it to be overtly complex, but here is my thinking. It can only be purchased from zombies after Brain Rot skill is purchased. Once the death knell skill is purchased the zombie can no longer harmanize. The zombie also can deliver a death knell blow _only_ to level 20+ survivors. If a death knell blow was successful and enough to reduce the health to zero, then the dead survivor would need an additional 5 AP to stand up. So this skill is to reward dedicated zombies and get zombies to go after more advanced players, but not inflict any new damage on lower level survivors. I appreciate any and all comments. They have been very helpful. [ORIGINAL VERSION]This is the equal opposite of the Zombie Hunter skill for the Headshot. Now zombies with this skill can inflict their rage against survivors, requiring survivors an extra 5 AP to stand up. I suggest that this skill can only be gained after the Brain Rot skill is purchased as the final death blow to the body of a dedicated zombie. Once the skill is purchased the character can no longer be revived.

Discussion (Death Knell)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly. Welcome, and well done for taking this through developing suggestions and not just straight to voting.

Unfortunately this is a dupe of a previous suggestion, called Mind Munch way back in 2005. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't catch that. Unlike the original version, my suggestion doesn't take away XP from the victim and it's the final death knell for a dedicated zombie character. I read the suggestions carefully and originally I thought this should only apply to dedicated zombie players as a reward and not dual characters that have both human and zombie skills. But the suggestion says to keep suggestions simple. I'm not sure of the additional complexity this offers. So even though my suggestion is a pseudo-dupe, it's slightly different, and is that enough to progress, or is it to close to the original? Lastly, my original intention for the Rage skill was for the final transformation into a unrecoverable zombie and to have the ability to run/move faster than a human. Just like in the flicks were zombies have great speed/rage over their human counterparts for long distances. But I couldn't figure out a simplistic way to do so that fits with UD's AP design.--MrCarver 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For a first timer on this page that is a really well balanced and thought out suggestion. I disagree with Ross about that dupe, this is significantly different as it prohibits a zombie from harmanising again. The name isn't great because it duplicates a feature from Borehamwood. My only real concern aside from that is that is people accidentally leave their game open and rather than just getting rot they get this and can't get revived but thats not really a reason to not have something in game...--xoxo 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The "dupe" suggestion is THREE YEARS OLD. That's ridiculous. The problem with the suggestion has nothing to do with "dupes". The problem is that this hurts newbies to much. Newbie converts have it even harder than starting Corpses.--Pesatyel 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

hurts newbies how? --xoxo 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Standup cost of 15. Yes, low level zombies have that already until they get Ankle Grab, but converts (survivors turned zombie) do not even have Vigour Mortis to start with, meaning their attacks are very weak. A lot of killed survivors do not like to play as zombies. We do not need to make it MORE difficult for them, not to mention headshot equivalent zombie skills are retarded because they DON'T HURT SURVIVORS. They hurt other zombies.-Pesatyel 07:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'dupe' would not have XP loss, that's a relic left over from the original headshot, any addition of a zombie style headshot skill wouldn't have that. There are other dupe out there. I dislike the notion that you have to be dedicated to zombie play in order to get this, as you don't to buy survivor headshot. The overpowering section of this suggestion is the no revives ever criteria, it gives no hope to sieges as the NTs will always be targeted first and they'll be reduced to being 'just another building' to the attackers whilst being prime defence objectives to the defenders, although I despise combat revives, it is a balance in the current game climate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think many people would actually buy this though, i mean there'll be a few but even a lot of rotters like being able to harmanise whenever they desire.--xoxo 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck is "harmanize"? Zombies don't sing. And you never said how it WORKS.--Pesatyel 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My main problem with this is that it hurts the zombies in the overall AP war, becase A dead human might become a zombie but of course, a lot are mrh? cowers, so I don't really know, but whatever. maybe if it delayed the time before they could be revived. but I would not get this skill even if I had brain rot. --Destor 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Fluorescent paint

Timestamp:	--Pestolence(talk) 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	All
Description:	Blake's paint can suggestion below me gave me an idea for a suggestion. This suggestion would add a new item, Paint Can, to the game. When using this item, you would have a 50% chance to cover the target in fluorescent (glow in the dark) paint. The paint would not cause damage to the target. Its effect would be: If the player covered in paint goes into a dark building, where the chance to hit is usually halved, chances for other players (PKers or zombies) to attack the player successfully would be the same as if the building was lighted. (Example: Player X is in a dark building, where the chance to hit him with a fire axe is 20%. Player Y throws glow in the dark paint on Player X. Player Y and any other players in the building now have a 40% chance to attack Player X successfully.) Possible flavor: (successful attack): You throw the paint at Player X and drench him with it. He now shows up more clearly in the dark building. (in a dark building with paint-covered humans):There are 15 humans here. 2 of them are covered in glowing paint and show up more clearly in the dark building. (paint-covered zombie):There are two zombies here. One is covered in some glowing paint. The paint would have no effect in lighted areas or outside. Some issues to be worked out: How long the paint would have an effect, since it wouldn't be fair to have a player at a disadvantage forever. Percent chance to successfully drench an opponent. So does this idea have a chance, or should I ditch it now? Are there any improvements anyone can suggest?

Discussion (Fluorescent Paint)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  00:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

amusing but insanely out of genre. I mean people walking around glowing the dark?? That sort of genre warping stuffs belongs on Halloween.--xoxo 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For realism, a way to get rid of it? At least sooner, rather than later? And you would be to be outside, in a lit building, or perhaps anywhere but a dark building. (That paint needs to be 'charged' first. Would it come "pre-charged"? As in, if someone were already in a dark building and covered in paint in a dark building?) _■^■ 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I like the idea of paint but its just a one use way to kill someone in a dark building... As is you would just need to carry a can and then for 1 AP you double your chance to hit (dark is half to hit?) Perhaps if the labels were missing or obscured (or in chinese?) and only 1 in 10 paint tins were glow in the dark?

Anyway i think having the painted victim leave a trail "Someone covered in blue paint went North" would be a better option (though if the paint is flouresent why not both?) As for removing the paint have each action tested as if the thrower was using a spray can... paint runs out and they get a message saying they managed to get the last of the wet paint off. Clothes should probably be ruined though for it to make sense and that is going to get people complaining. --Honestmistake 09:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be chance of the person using the paint getting it on themselves. One thing though, how about a person can remove the paint if they change clothes?--Pesatyel 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Griefing tactic. Go outside, scan the horde, paint every zombie with no harman skills for revive teams. Way to kill zombie recruitment. Survivors will bitch and whine that their precious clothing that they trekked half way across Malton for now has to be replaced. This is going to cause 'player' grief, meaning people will wonder why they bother with the game and leave. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points about griefing, Iscariot, and yeah, I guess it is out of genre. While I really don't give a crap about survivors and their precious clothes, I know that half of Malton does, so yeah... I guess it might be better to dump this now. Thanks for the constructive criticism, everyone. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Paint can

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Weapon
Scope:	All
Description:	Found in hardware stores at a rate of 8% for unlit, +4/-4 for powered/ruined respectively. Melee weapon, counts as a scavenged weapon and as such civilians can be found with one. 25% accuracy, 1 damage. Special functions are that you can use a paint can to cover graffiti in rooms. Using it uses up the paint can. Plus, when you swing it, there is a 25% chance the target will be covered in paint. Getting covered in paint has no effects, other than listing them differently, e.g. "There are 15 zombies here. 4 of them are covered in flourescent paint" No, the paint does not glow in the dark.

Discussion (Paint can)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any blaring issue with it, except you might want to change the flavor text. Florescent generally means "glowing in dark" Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A useless melee weapon which has one (possibly) redeeming feature, the ability to cover zombies in paint. Somehow I doubt this would pass. It just doesn't really add that much, not that it wouldn't be funny to run across some zombies drenched in paint. :P - User:Whitehouse 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did go for the humour with this one. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can already cover graffiti in rooms with a spray can, with only the usual chance to use up the spray can. Fluorescent paint might be a laugh, but IMO this suggestion as written would never pass voting due to being use-impaired. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless and a massive dupe of ingame with it's main function (covering graffiti), the other stuff is flavour and irrelevant, no one'd use it anyway for 25%...--xoxo 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about 50% then? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can already use a spray can to cover up graffiti, so that's a dupe (is it? if an effect is already ingame then it must be a dupe), and the rest is pretty funny (who wouldn't want to drench a zombie in paint?) but fairly useless flavor. If I want that damage, I'll just punch someone. Although fluorescent paint might have an interesting use... --Pestolence^(talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but don't you need to write other graffiti in order to cover graffiti? This saves the hassle of having to make up something just to over-write what's already there. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If your intending to write graffiti (if even to just cover over what is there) you already, most likely, have something in mind. If not, you can just type gibberish. So big deal, it is a non-issue.--Pesatyel 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can just paint " " (a space) and the game will tell you You spray a blank rectangle. and clear the location of any graffiti. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,12]} 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is every single one of your suggestions survivor biased? I don't see any sharp edges on paint cans, that makes them a blunt weapon, can zombies use this? How do you get rid of this paint? Incomplete. Blood Smear is the skill that needs to pass to get rid of unwanted graffiti, not another item to ruin search rates. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them.. Oh, and as for your remarks, yes zombies can use the can. The paint (on clothes) can be gotten rid of in the same way that blood stains can (changing clothes) and by death. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Night vision goggles

Timestamp:	16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	This item would help survivors look for items in the dark and help them with fighting in dark buildings. You would find them in mall tech stores, and forts. The goggles would increase your success rate in finding items in the dark, but they will not replace generators, one reason being that it would be unfair to zombies and for realism sake since night vision goggles are not as good as a well lit room. Things I need help on: What should the likely hood of finding night vision goggles in tech stores and forts be? What should the increase in finding items be? What should the increase in hiting a target be? Should they have a battery life? Others questions that need to be answered?

Discussion (Night vision goggles)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 7 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds okay... The increase should not be too high though so it doesn't replace generators. Would this also increase the chance for a successful attack in a dark room? That's kind of the implied use. --Pestolence^(talk) 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Been suggested before. Been spectacularly killed before. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To Pestolence, yes it would. Also, Iscariot could you give me the link to the dupe? Nequa 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty dupey, but meh. Shouldn't be too big an increase though, so it doesn't take over generators. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a nightvision clothing item already in-game, but it doesn't do anything, so it's not a dupe of this. Other then that, I (surprisingly) can't find a dupe of it. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That is surprising, do you think it could work? I still need to work out some details but I think it sounds like a good idea. Nequa 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The night vision goggles you can put on in forts are broken to prevent any perception of potential usefulness. There have already been suggestions for increasing hit rates/search rates in dark buildings using a variety of methods such as flashlights/torches, and your suggestion is only different in that you say, "night vision goggles," instead of, "flashlight." Your suggestion will fail because it would turn dark dark buildings from zombie nerf to unbelievably overpowered zombie nerf. It would take away almost all of the drawbacks and totally skews the balance of the game. There is also not a single PKer or (reasonably intelligent) PKer target who would vote for this, as it takes away from the safety that dark buildings offer.--William Told 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your acting like I want to have the night vision goggles replace generators completely. They would only give a small boosts to fighting and finding things, generators would still be extremely important and since you can only find night vision goggles in two places, and the likely hood of finding night vision goggles would be small. But if this is a dupe I cant do much can I? Nequa 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with a small boost for survivors (maybe a zombie skill to balance,) but night vision goggles should never replace generators. Perhaps make them breakable (say, a 25% chance on breakage with a successful strike?) Here are some flashlight suggestions. Although your suggestion is similar, there is enough chance for modification to make it not dupey. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 01:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest losing your goggles if you die. But yeah, William Told brings up a good point with this: There have already been suggestions for increasing hit rates/search rates in dark buildings using a variety of methods such as flashlights/torches, and your suggestion is only different in that you say, "night vision goggles," instead of, "flashlight." User:Pestolence

I still need to work some stuff out, If I don't give a clear idea of what this does, there going to tear me a new A hole. If anybody has ideas on developing this further, it would be appreciated. Nequa 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please put your timestamp on the same line as the rest of your post. --William Told 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

K Nequa 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It never got off of the talk page. It died. _■^■ 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you need to give us YOUR thoughts on the numbers. We are here to discuss YOUR suggestion, not make it for you. And for those who bring up it having been suggested and killed before...circumstances have changed.--Pesatyel 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark building ones have been killed before, too.--William Told 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Depants

Timestamp:	--Gus ThomasSpartaZHU 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Upon purchasing this skill, zombies will have a 4th "attack" option to interact with humans. Just as with the three attack options currently used, the attack dropdown menu will allow the zombie to "attack with depants". However, rather then doing damage to the human (as do bite and claw options), the zombie will simply drag the target humans pants/skirt/kilt down.Additionally, a zombie is able to use this skill against zombies wearing pants as well. Zombie will not gain some cyrptic method of identifying targets wearing pants, and the player will have to rely on a targets profile to tell if they have pants on or not. Similar to the human ability to attack with a 100% chance to hit with a newspaper, zombies with the depants skill have a 100% success rate (as with Feeding Drag). Finally, once a zombie successfully depants a target, the target is thus in a state of pantslessness until they go through their settings and put a new pair on. Zombies, of course, would have to be revived before they are able to do that. As the zombie brain is limited in its state of undeath, the zombie is unable to distinguish between pants, skirts, kilts or shorts, and all its flavor text will refer to these items of clothing as merely "pants". Prerequisities: Player must be zombie at time of skill purchase, just like every other zombie skill. Location in Skill tree:Found within the Vigour Mortis skill set, this skill is only available after Feeding Drag is purchased. While technically this would make the skill a 3rd tier (it has two prerequisities), humans already have three such skills (Advanced Pistol Training, Advanced Shotgun Training and NecroNet Access). Crossover skill: Humans already have a similar attack when they attack a zombie or a human with a newspaper (see here). Therefore depantsing will be limited to just zombies. Cost in XP: 100exp, just like every other zombie skill. How it's activated: As explained in description (above), this skill is used same as Feeding Drag. When attacking a human, it will be a 4th "attack" option available to the zombie that has it. Unlike Feeding Drag, there will be no change to the human location. Cost in AP: One AP, same as the other zombie attacks. Flavor text: When attacking a human with pants or skirt : Zombie will get the message "You drag {target}'s pants down". Humans will get the message "A zombie dragged your pants down" (unless targeted human has attacking zombie in their contacts). When attacking a human with no pants or skirt :Zombie will get the message "{Target} is already pantsless". Zombie will not lose a AP. Third partys : Regardless of being a zombie or a human, anyone in the same immediate area will get the text "A zombie pulled down {Target}'s pants. (time ago)". As with the targets perspective, players would not see the zombies name unless they have them in contacts. In order to witness a depantsing, a player needs to be inside if it occurs inside, or in the same section of the large building (for example, same block of a mall). Finally, regardless of how many players are in the building, everyone there will witness the depantsing. Precedent of this is when a player kills another player, regardless of how many people are in the building, everyone sees it.

Discussion (Depants)

There is current discussion, as of today. - tylerisfat 08:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kyle's comment below makes this current discussion again. Please consider removing this stamp :D--Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 06:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's easy to do yourself, and assuming there is, it's fine to remove it. I might move this to the Overflow page as it's rather old. Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As personal policy, i try not to edit other people's comments etc. I am actually looking to put this up to vote, just waiting on help on how to do that. I wouldnt want to spam up voting with incorrect procedure :P --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 22:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone please inform Gus. (I don't know how to, either.)--Drugsanimudongs 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Look here. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Trousers. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Win, win, win, win, and more win.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF CENTAUR - Epic win. --Haliman - Talk 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacking a human with no pants shouldn't cost AP. Drag doesn't have a penalty for trying to drag harmanz over 12 HP, neither does a normal attack on an invalid target, using an item on a dead body, etc. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed, thanks for pointing that out Rev. --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No because I want my zombies to be brain craving fiends not pants snatching perverts--Honestmistake 09:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote keep, just because it's funny.--Studoku ^W! 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While this will never get implemented, I will gladly vote keep if you put it up for voting.--JaredV 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless Wedgie is introduced I won't vote Keep on this.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm voteing keep to this, this stuff is good and could add a comdic moment in battle. --Ltpotter 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious, I'd vote yes. --Fiffy 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My name is Dongs and I approve this suggestion. UD is a game. Games are meant to be fun. UD is competitive, yes, but above all, UD is FUN. APPROVE DEPANTS.--Drugsanimudongs 12:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

UD needs this skill. Harmanz must learn the joy zambahz experience with having no pants. Pants are ANTI-BARHAH --KyleStyle 06:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm Dick Johansonson and I approve of this skill. --Dick Johansonson 06:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Watch

Suggestion:20081110_Watch is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this Voice

Suggestion:20081115 Ignore this Voice is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 07:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)